and while you are at it; RFC2119 boiler plate is out of date.
no note to RFC Editor asking them to replace the dates in the YANG module YANG module woefully short of references - about 15 needed; this to me is a show stopper, i.e. puts me off a more detailed review curious use of identities for RIP - most protocols have a base identity for any flavour of the protocol and then derive further identities for particular versions in light of which, the introduction leaves me uncertain about support for RIP v1 curious use of derived-from-or-self in many places - if the condition is for e.g. ripng, then why not a simple equality? /cooresponding /corresponding/ for IANA considerations RFC7950 is not a good reference since all it says is go read RFC6020 Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Tantsura" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2019 5:04 AM > Dear co-authors, > > Please fix YANG validation errors and re-submit. > > Regards, > Jeff > > > On Aug 28, 2019, at 14:54, IETF I-D Submission Tool <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > The IETF datatracker draft submission service has received your draft > > draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rip-11, and requires a > > confirmation step in order to be able to complete the posting of > > the draft. > > Please follow this link to the page where you can confirm the posting: > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/submit/status/106193/confirm/a680bfc6b2d12c d346dac00b89b0daa2/ > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > The IETF Secretariat > > through the draft submission service > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > rtgwg mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
